@misc{campisano_butler_ward_burns_friedler_debusk_fisher-jeffes_ghisi_rahman_furumai_et al._2017, title={Urban rainwater harvesting systems: Research, implementation and future perspectives}, volume={115}, journal={Water Research}, author={Campisano, A. and Butler, D. and Ward, S. and Burns, M. J. and Friedler, E. and DeBusk, K. and Fisher-Jeffes, L. N. and Ghisi, E. and Rahman, A. and Furumai, H. and et al.}, year={2017}, pages={195–209} }
 @article{debusk_hunt_2014, title={Impact of rainwater harvesting systems on nutrient and sediment concentrations in roof runoff}, volume={14}, ISSN={["1606-9749"]}, DOI={10.2166/ws.2013.191}, abstractNote={Rainwater harvesting (RWH) systems have the unique ability to contribute to stormwater management goals via mitigation of runoff volumes and peak flow rates. Additionally, collecting and storing runoff via RWH systems can potentially provide water quality benefits due to physical and chemical processes that occur within the storage tank. This study quantified the water quality improvement provided by storing rooftop runoff via RWH systems at four sites in Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Roof runoff and extraction spigot samples were analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS), nitrogen species and total phosphorus. Roof concentrations were significantly greater than spigot concentrations for all constituents except TSS, indicating the ability of RWH systems to significantly lower nutrient concentrations of incoming roof runoff. Lack of significant TSS reduction was likely attributable to low, ‘irreducible’ concentrations of TSS in the roof runoff. The use of additional filtration components prior to the extraction spigot could aid in lowering spigot TSS concentrations. The findings presented herein contend that stormwater benefits associated with RWH are not only limited to hydrologic mitigation, but also include reductions in concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus species. Thus, it is recommended that pollutant removal credit be assigned to these systems when used as stormwater control measures.}, number={2}, journal={WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-WATER SUPPLY}, author={DeBusk, Kathy M. and Hunt, William F., III}, year={2014}, pages={220–229} }
 @article{debusk_hunt_wright_2013, title={CHARACTERIZING RAINWATER HARVESTING PERFORMANCE AND DEMONSTRATING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS IN THE HUMID SOUTHEAST USA}, volume={49}, ISSN={["1752-1688"]}, DOI={10.1111/jawr.12096}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={6}, journal={JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION}, author={DeBusk, K. M. and Hunt, W. F. and Wright, J. D.}, year={2013}, month={Dec}, pages={1398–1411} }
 @article{debusk_hunt_line_2011, title={Bioretention Outflow: Does It Mimic Nonurban Watershed Shallow Interflow?}, volume={16}, ISSN={["1943-5584"]}, DOI={10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000315}, abstractNote={Bioretention, a key structural practice of low impact development (LID), has been proved to decrease peak flow rates and volumes, promote infiltration and evapotranspiration, and improve water quality. Exactly how well bioretention mimics predevelopment (or “natural”) hydrology is an important research question. Do bioretention outflow rates mirror shallow groundwater interevent stream recharge flow associated with natural or nonurban watersheds? Streamflow from three small, nonurban watersheds, located in Piedmont, part of central North Carolina, was compared with bioretention outflow from four cells also in North Carolina’s Piedmont region. Each benchmark watershed drained to a small stream, where flow rate was monitored for an extended period of time. After normalizing the flow rates and volumes by watershed size, data were combined to form two data sets: bioretention outflow and stream interevent flow. Results indicate that there is no statistical difference between flow rates in streams draining unde...}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING}, author={DeBusk, Kathy M. and Hunt, William F. and Line, Daniel E.}, year={2011}, month={Mar}, pages={274–279} }